yoyo:

Wow, what a constructive guy.  I especially like the part where you say it is wrong, and offer no reasons for it but yet call people names for thinking it is right.  At least most here that disagree offer formulas, explanations, etc. that support their beliefs.   You, on the other hand, offer us nothing except to say you are right and everyone else that does not agree with you is wrong just because they are.  I have not seen logic like this since my ex-wife.

Thank you for enlightening all of us little, ignorant folks out here.  Even if it were to turn out down the road that you are correct, you would not even know why.  Such a shame.  I really feel sorry for folks like you.

Bill

hello bill i have no other formulas to add some people have already said many reasons why its wrong and why and i agree with them

my comment was why do so many people ignore the good information its like people know enough to fiddle around but dont know enough to know that they dont know enough
so i get frustrated i used to think this site was 90% people with a good understanding and i can learn from them and 10% not but more and more i think it is the opposite
and so when smart people say u r wrong and here is why and then the other people say well i know the old math but im using archurian physics so ur math doesnt count
it adds to the population thinking the free energy people are a bunch of uneducated ignorant kooks

i mean if u were pursing science wouldnt u take the good advice offered and apply it and see if maybe they actually r right and know what they r saying or r u just ignoring it and going on about it the same way and saying i have the answer and thanks for the comment but u r wrong so i will ignore your good advice

The "young" fox walks out on the ice and does not hear it cracking, therefore he gets his tail wet...no blame

The fatal flaws have all been revealed in earlier posts by Poynt99, Tinu, myself and others. They are glossed over by the "blind faithful"

A truly scientific experiment demands a proper test set, not a pinball machine or roulette wheel.

There is no relation of DC power input to rotation of this particular  motor since it has no means for commutation of the DC source.

This stepper will lock up at a position between coils with continuous DC power applied.

Plot the curve. Greater power eventually equals stalled rotor. An inverse function which will yield faulty test results with longer duration pulses.

I would recommend removing two of the coils and magnet arrays, they are interfering with longer pulse measurement. Still not a perfect solution but it will reveal the problem

A simple linear motor comprising a coil, a magnet, a ramp and a small weight will yield surprisingly more accurate results of applied short duration pulses of varying pulse width or amplitude than the stepper type motor.

Best to get your hands on a ballistic galvanometer or oscilloscope.

Bill if you and the captain can't understand this, I feel really bad for you so.....

Gloss over this one too!

Quote from: spinner on November 18, 2008, 06:07:34 AM
Yes, a good practical setup leads to a high-efficiency (but not OU) switching capability. Zero-cross circuits are widely acceptable when you deal with AC to DC switcher concepts. But when someone discharges a "Coulombs" charge into load, the already mentioned equation (Cap energy) is valid (there is no zero-cross circuits when discharging a DC... )

The normal losses with discharge a charged capacitor are mostly ohmic (for instance, leads/wires cannot deal with a multi-kiloamperes of theoretical Coulomb current, then there is a radiated EM pulse (dI/dt), an electrochemical (dielectric) process, heat dissipation,electromotive force stresses, U/I phase power losses, etc...)

So, a C to C discharge is certainly >95% efficient.
But not OU. OK?
The overall energy left in any of the circuit capacitors after discharging a prime capacitor through the (multiple) drains is "less" than the original, stored energy in that same cap. Perfectly CoE.
After all, the E=CV^2/2 is suggesting a non-linear, exponential  energy vs. voltage respond....
Or, in other words, a C with a half of the original Voltage holds much LESS than half of the starting energy...

You say
(there is no zero-cross circuits when discharging a DC... )
If you put a tank circuit between two caps and discharge DC through it, the DC impulse will create an AC freq in the tank, you then switch on  zero crosses of these oscillations, this gives the ability to transfer charge from one static (DC) cap to the other with few losses. Admittedly you would need a large tank to do it in one shot, more likely you would need to perform many seperate shots until the caps were equal. You could also put a load in series with the tank, obviously work done in the load would still cost but energy not used by the load could be harvested and saved by the tank instead of just being lost as EMI and circuit heating.

Of couse its more involved than just putting LC tank between caps, you need to have zero cross detectors to trigger switching fets etc.

If captainpecan employed this method of cap to cap discharge then the 18V + 0V caps would end up as approx 13V + 13V instead of 9V + 9V. Of course it still wouldn´t be OU. We are in basic agreement.

Quote from: spinner on November 18, 2008, 06:07:34 AM
I do hope you understand that CP's motor is not actually doing any (useful) work. In fact, a 3-coil PM rotor gets it's impetus only in the beginning, when the discharge starts... If one connects such "motor" to a  "uniform"/stabilized  voltage (batt) supply, it wouldn't be able to spin at all (because of the symmetry of all the forces )... The reason that rotor turns (at least for a while) is that the opposing force diminishes with time... So, the real mechanical work showed is minuscule, in fact if the rotor is removed, the results  of the cap discharge overunity are "almost" the same...
etc..

I mentioned the inadequecies of the one shot pulse motor as a work measuring device in an earlier post (#89) on this thread.

Yucca.

Wow... It's no wonder nobody has claimed that overunity prize!  If anyone ever tries to do something different for a change, my god, let's do whatever we can to trash and call them names. It would be such a shame if people started viewing things a little different, and just maybe had a chance to move another forward to what we all seek. Well, most of us seek anyway. It seems there is an amazing amount of people planted on this forum that have no purpose but to tear people down, and make sure nobody ever progresses.

Since you know it all, where's your fabulous overunity machines?  Let's see your videos!   Oh... that's right, you seem to be stuck doing things exactly like everyone else has always done them.  Oh well, since you cant figure out anything new that way, I guess the only thing left is to tear everyone else down to make sure nobody else figures anything out either.  Well, your wasting your time.  Those who want to see what's going on here are going to see it, whether you like it or not. So deal with it.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. There is nothing wrong with stating your opinions. And there is nothing wrong with suggesting better ways of doing things.  But it is absolutely childish, and ignorant to keep ranting, raving, kicking, screaming, and throwing your little fits because others wish to contribute here.  You've given your opinions, now move on, some of us are trying to get some work done, and make a positive influence.  We dont have time to baby sit.